|
Support and dissemination
The fact that most schools show desired changes, especially in some if not all of their classrooms, reveals that school principals are generally creating a school climate which encourages and supports changed behaviour in teachers. Not least, many school principals are changing their attitudes towards what constitutes a good classroom and this is being reflected in their behaviour. School principals actively encourage their teachers to attend trainings and to try out what they learn, even on a small scale, in their lessons. They give teachers the opportunity and encouragement to implement changes in the classroom. Some directly help by giving ideas and needed funds when requested.
Dissemination of home-grown innovations within the school and cluster is one means of both supporting/ rewarding the innovator and spreading their ideas. One strategy reported was to encourage teachers to visit and observe each other's classes so that they could see innovations at first hand, and in practice. Another strategy was for others to watch a demonstration lesson, in situ. Yet another means was for the innovator to disseminate the idea through informal meetings and daily discussions or chats with colleagues.
In addition to these direct methods, ideas were shared and discussed on a more formal basis in regular meetings. These were either at the school or cluster level. One head's strategy was for the best innovation seen during the week to be presented to colleagues during the school meeting. Many encourage their teachers to take part actively in KKG meetings. According to one school principal, the existence of "KKG helps teachers to 'standardize' their teaching materials among themselves. They also compare class and school progress, and help each other".
A variety of other formal meetings were conducted too, to include a wider number of interested parties. For example, all teachers being invited to attend monthly meetings for "program evaluation, discussion, sharing - take and give, and (as a result) building school cohesiveness". At some stage in the process, schools will also hold the much more widely attended socialization meeting to which "teachers, school committee, leading community figures are invited to discuss innovations together". Such meetings, give all parties involved the chance to reflect on the worth of any proposed change and suggest refinements.
Constraints and their management
In any change process, there are always constraints to progress. One of the most commonly reported constraints was resistance to change - things were considered to be running well and change thought to be unnecessary. This was usually attributed by school principals to some of their teachers or to some of their parents. Resistance can come from a variety of sources, and be either open or covert. Some school principals themselves could not be cleared from resisting changes or ignoring some important functions within their new role, through passive covert resistance. The most common omission on the part of school principals was not observing teachers lessons, as discussed above.
Some school principals comments referring to themselves were candid and showed a growing awareness of the need for self-improvement. Comments such as "not enough skill to be effective", and "not enough skill, time, and funds to be an effective" head showed this. This private madrasah school principal attempted to overcome the problem with the philosophy of "try and try again!". Other school principals however, possess "insufficient resource materials to develop themselves so innovation is stagnant". They sometime called on resource persons for assistance. They also admitted to having "limited knowledge and skill in giving teaching-learning examples in certain areas", particularly those school principals who have not qualified in one of the 5 mainstream subjects (B. Indonesia, maths, science, social studies and English). Madrasah schools also felt at a disadvantage here as the majority of their teachers have not been trained to teach these core school subjects. [How can MBE help here?]
Some school principals seemed to be dismissive of their teachers, reluctant to see that they too have valid constraints which could explain their point of view and hence their behaviour. Negative comments included "teachers' motivation is not stable"; "teachers' creativity is limited"; "teachers do not easily understand the basic concept of PAKEM. They are moving slowly". This was probably so, considering that teachers have the more difficult job in the school. PAKEM teaching methods are very new to them, UAS end of cycle assessment and the annual end of year tests are still based on the ability to memorize rather than be pupils being expressive, descriptive, creative and write in their own words. Moreover, parents judge teachers by the scores their child gained on these tests. It is little wonder that until proven beneficial, some teachers regard the innovations with reluctance. There is also a mis-conception that to teach using PAKEM methods means writing special PAKEM scenarios (lesson plans) and abandoning the textbook. MBE trainings could assist here by showing teachers how to better exploit the textbook (buku paket) as "teachers do not want to be busy preparing things" given the general poor resources and limited access to consumables.
Other heads were more understanding and actually recognized that teachers also face constraints. Their comments were more positive. "Not all teachers gave positive responses" and there were "psychological barriers (to change) from senior teachers". These heads reported holding informal meetings and the importance of "being a friend rather a boss or evaluator" as the strategies used to mange these situations. When teachers had difficulties teaching through PAKEM, school principals and other teachers would assist them to "solve a problem" or hold informal meetings to discuss educational innovations were held. Other school principals acknowledged that for the most part teachers were still at the first stage of the innovation process - "teachers are not yet independent innovators, so always ask for examples of PAKEM to copy". The more perceptive cited the "lack of learning facilities, books, media" to support PAKEM as a constraint.
In general, coping strategies revolved around meetings of some type or personal chats to give advice and guidance to teachers or as one head put it, to "broaden their horizons". Only one enterprising school principal reported assigning the less-responsive teachers to accompany the head in guiding visitors around the school so that they had to learn about the innovations. When the personal approach was unsuccessful, school principals admitted to resorting to the formal outlet of official letters: not a very progressive behaviour to display. That parents were considered a constraint by some school principals - to what one asks? - is somewhat a mystery. Any move to reduce the distance between parents and the school has to come from the school principal and teachers. As a welcoming school is one part of the SBM package, schools need to strive to become such., then the majority of parents will respond.
If most schools continue to keep their parents out of the school/ classroom, thus reinforcing the artificial divide between school business and parent responsibility, then complaints like "parents do not respond to what their children do. They surrender everything to schools" becomes self fulfilling. That it is the task of the school to make the opening moves is self evident. If school principals and school committee do not name some of the many ways in which parents can help their school and child, other than financially, parents will continue to assume that only their money is wanted. A few enterprising schools "invite parents into classes and give them opportunities to become resource persons" or "involve them in the decision making process in school committee".
|
